Iris Wilcox, CSC Docket No. 2022-74

BackgroundIris Wilcox appeals the decision of the Division of Agency Services (Agency Services) that the proper classification of her position with New Jersey City University is Administrative Assistant 2. The appellant seeks a classification of Professional Services Specialist 1, Administrative Services or Professional Services Specialist 2, Administrative Services.

By way of background, the appellant filed a request for a position classification review of her permanent title as Professional Services Specialist 3, Administrative Services, to which she was appointed on February 6, 2017, alleging that her duties are more closely aligned with the duties of a Professional Services Specialist 1, Administrative Services. She was assigned to the Department of Facilities and Construction Management at New Jersey City University, reported to an Assistant Director of Maintenance, and had no supervisory responsibilities.1 Agency Services concluded that the appellant’s position was properly classified as Professional Services Specialist 2, Administrative Services, effective October 24, 2020, based on the responsibilities of the position including: establishing and enforcing safety policies for the department; preparing data for reports and recommendations; assisting in the development of budgets, proposals, and procurement plans of equipment and supplies; monitoring the budget reconciliation; providing advisory services; maintaining records and files; managing office inventories; overseeing the department communication board; organizing the acquisition, distribution, and inventorying of facilities equipment; and facilitating and implementing training for office staff.

Appellant's argument1 On appeal, the appellant indicates that she was transferred on July 1, 2021 to the Department of Real Estate and Capital Projects and reports to an Associate Vice President

In In the Matter of Iris Wilcox, New Jersey City University (CSC, decided May 19, 2021), the Civil Service Commission (Commission) explained that based on law the generic non-competitive title that the appellant sought was not intended to be used where an existing career service competitive title would appropriately classify a position, and there were no duties that the appellant performed that appear to fall outside of the scope of existing competitive titles. It also found that the appellant did not have the responsibility of supervising staff as she indicated on her PCQ, completed in August 2020, that she did not complete employee evaluations. Additionally, it found that the appellant’s ePAR was signed by the Assistant Director of Maintenance, who would be the supervisor of the position, while the Associate Vice President is the supervisor of the Assistant Director of Maintenance. It specified that the appointing authority should revise the organizational chart to reflect supervision of the position by the Assistant Director of Maintenance, or direct the Associate Vice President to complete the appellant’s ePAR. No further ePAR or organizational chart information has been provided for the current appeal. The Commission ordered Agency Services to re-review the classification of the position, and that a classification as a Professional Services Specialist 1, Administrative Services was not warranted as the position had supervisory duties at the time of the review. As a result, Agency Services conducted another analysis of the information provided, and concluded that the appellant’s position was properly classified as Administrative Assistant 2, effective July 3, 2021.

On appeal of this classification, the appellant reiterates her prior arguments and provides an update on her position. In her prior appeal, the appellant stated that she supervised the work of administrative staff, student assistants and work study students. In this appeal, she indicates that she supervises work study and student assistants, and she submits a memo from the Associate Vice President dated November 4, 2019 which indicates that she is “overseeing” administrative staff. The appellant again maintains that she worked for the Associate Vice President, and currently works for an Associate Vice President after a transfer on July 1, 2021. She argues that the current classification of Administrative Assistant 2 does not align with her current responsibilities, but she provides no further details regarding this issue. The appellant provides work samples showing supervisory duties of “lower level staff.” Among these documents is an email string regarding an interim ePAR meeting that she performed on April 1, 2021 for a Data Processing Programmer Technician.

CONCLUSION

RuleN.J.A.C. 4A:3-3.9(e) states that in classification appeals, the appellant shall provide copies of all materials submitted, the determination received from the lower level, statements as to which portions of the determination are being disputed, and the basis for appeal. Information and/or argument which was not presented at the prior level of appeal shall not be considered.

The definition section of the job specification for Professional Services Specialist 2, Administrative Services states:

Under the supervision of a higher administrative officer in the

AnalysisAdministrative Services area at a State college, is responsible for independently performing professional work of considerable difficulty using established policies, procedures, precedents, and guidelines;

takes the lead over lower level staff; does related work as required.

RuleThe definition section of the job specification for Professional Services Specialist 1, Administrative Services states:

Under the direction of a Director 2 or higher administrative officer in the Administrative Services area at a State college, is responsible for independently performing a professional function or functions of unusual difficulty, sensitivity and/or complexity within the context of established college policies and procedures; does related work as required.

The definition section of the job specification for Administrative Assistant 2 states:

Assists a division director in a State department, institution, or agency by performing and coordinating administrative support services; does other related work as required.

AnalysisThe utilization of the professional level Administrative Assistant title series is determined based on the level of the assigned immediate supervisor. In this regard, this title is an “entitlement title,” and one Director is allowed only one Administrative Assistant 2. The Administrative Assistant 1 title is used to classify positions which assist an Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, or other Executive Officer with responsibility for more than one division in a State department. The Administrative Assistant 2 title is used to classify positions which assist a Division Director in a State department, institution, or agency. See e.g., In the Matter of Christine Voilas (CSC, decided March 11, 2009). An incumbent Administrative Assistant acts as a principal assistant to a manager or executive on administrative matters, relieving the supervisor of details related to the internal operation of the unit. The Administrative Assistant serves to coordinate support services to insure the availability and efficient use of resources needed to accomplish the goal of the unit, such as preparing the administrative aspects of the budget, coordination of fiscal and personnel procedures, and investigation of administrative or operational problems.

The Administrative Assistant 2 title is a good fit for the appellant’s duties as listed on her Position Classification Questionnaire (PCQ). The appellant argues that it does not describe her current duties, and it is noted that she transferred out of the Department of Facilities and Construction Management. In this respect, classification reviews are based on a review of assigned duties, that is, the duties presented in the audit. Duties which are anticipated to be assigned in the future cannot be considered in a classification review and are not material to the position’s current classification. Thus, if the appellant’s duties are now different, she can request another classification of her position. However, at the time of the audit, the duties are best represented by Administrative Assistant 2. As for the level of this entitlement title, as explained by the Commission in Wilcox, supra, the appellant’s ePAR was signed by the Assistant Director of Maintenance, and therefore, the Assistant Director of Maintenance is the appellant’s supervisor. Accordingly, Administrative Assistant 2 is the proper level of this entitlement title.

Lastly, the appellant maintains that she supervises one full-time employee, and has completed an interim ePAR. In that respect, the Administrative Assistant 2 title, while professional, is not a supervisory title. Additionally, in In the Matter of Rosemary Lynn Gash, Office of Information Technology (CSC, decided April 19, 2017), the Commission noted that Agency Services determined that the standard required to classify titles assigned to the primary level supervisory employee relations group (ERG) is that position must supervise three or more lower-level employees, including the preparation and signing of their PARs. The appointing authority should remove rating responsibilities from the subordinate’s non- supervisory position, or provide the appellant with two more subordinates and a primary-level supervisory title with commensurate duties.

Accordingly, a thorough review of the entire record fails to establish that Iris Wilcox has presented a sufficient basis to warrant a Professional Services Specialist 1, Administrative Services or Professional Services Specialist 2, Administrative Services classification of her position.

ORDER

Therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be denied as the position of Iris Wilcox is properly classified as an Administrative Assistant 2.

ClosingThis is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review is to be pursued in a judicial forum.